(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Mr. Kingsley and Dr. Newman : a correspondence on the question whether Dr. Newman teaches that truth is no virtue?"

MR. KINGSLEY AND DR. NEWMAN : 



CORRESPONDENCE 

(Pit tltf Question 

WHETHER DR. NEWMAN TEACHES THAT 
TRUTH IS NO VIRTUE? 



LONDON: 

LONGMAN, GREEN, LONGMAN, ROBERTS, AND GREEN. 

1864. 

Price One Shilling. 



LONDON : 

GILBERT AND RTVINGTON, PRINTERS, 
ST. JOHN'S SQUARE. 



ADVERTISEMENT, 



To prevent misconception, I think it necessary to 
observe, that, in my Letters here published, I 
am far indeed fr.om implying any admission of the 
truth of Mr. Kingsley's accusations against the 
Catholic Church, although I have abstained from 
making any formal protest against them. The 
object which led to my writing at all, has also led 
me, in writing, to turn my thoughts in a different 

direction. 

J, H. N. . 

January 31, 1864. 



A 2 



CORRESPONDENCE, 
*. 



i. 

Extract from a Review of Fronde's History of 
England, vols. vii. and viii., in Macmillaris 
Magazine for January, 1864, signed " C. K." 

PAGES 216, 217. 

" THE Eoman religion had, for some time past, 
been making men not better men, but worse. We 
must face, we must conceive honestly for ourselves, 
the deep demoralization which had been brought 
on in Europe by the dogma that the Pope of Rome 
had the power of creating right and wrong; that 
not only truth and falsehood, but morality and im- 
morality, depended on his setting his seal to a bit 
of parchment. From the time that indulgences 
were hawked about in his name, which would 
insure pardon for any man, ' etsi matrem Dei viola- 
vissetj the world in general began to be of that 



6 

opinion. But the mischief was older and deeper 
than those indulgences. It lay in the very notion 
of the dispensing power. A deed might be a 
crime, or no crime at all like Henry the Eighth's 
marriage of his brother's widow according to the 
will of the Pope. If it suited the interest or 
caprice of the old man of Rome not to say the 
word, the doer of a certain deed would be burned 
alive in hell for ever. If it suited him, on the 
other hand, to say it, the doer of the same deed 
would go, sacramentis munitus, to endless bliss. 
What rule of morality, what eternal law of right 
and wrong, could remain in the hearts of men 
born and bred under the shadow of so hideous a 
deception ? 

"And the shadow did not pass at once, when 
the Pope's authority was thrown off. Henry VIII. 
evidently thought that if the Pope could make 
right and wrong, perhaps he could do so likewise. 
Elizabeth seems to have fancied, at one weak 
moment, that the Pope had the power of making 
her marriage with Leicester right, instead of 



wrong. 



"Moreover, when the moral canon of the Pope's 
will was gone, there was for a while no canon of 
morality left. The average morality of Elizabeth's 
reign was not so much low, as capricious, self- 
willed, fortuitous; magnificent one day in virtue, 
terrible the next in vice. It was not till more 
than one generation had grown up and died with 



the Bible in their hands, that Englishmen arid 
Germans began to understand (what Frenchmen 
and Italians did not understand) that they were to 
be judged by the everlasting laws of a God who 
was no respecter of persons. 

" So, again, of the virtue of truth. Truth, for 
its own sake, had never been a virtue with the 
Roman clergy. Father Newman informs us that 
it need not, and on the whole ought not to be; 
that cunning is the weapon which Heaven has 
given to the saints wherewith to withstand the 
brute male force of the wicked world which 
marries and is given in marriage. Whether his 
notion be doctrinally correct or not, it is at least 
historically so. 

" Ever since Pope Stephen forged an epistle 
from St. Peter to Pepin, King of the Franks, and 
sent it with some filings of the saint's holy chains, 
that he might bribe him to invade Italy, destroy 
the Lombards, and confirm to him the * Patrimony 
of St. Peter ;' ever since the first monk forged the 
first charter of his monastery, or dug the first 
heathen Anglo-Saxon out of his barrow, to make 
him a martyr and a worker of miracles, because 
his own minster did not ' draw ' as well as the 
rival minster ten miles off; ever since this had 
the heap of lies been accumulating, spawning, 
breeding fresh lies, till men began to ask them- 
selves whether truth was a thing worth troubling 



8 

a practical man's head about, and to suspect that 
tongues were given to men, as claws to cats and 
horns to bulls, simply for purposes of offence and 
defence." 



II. 

DR. NEWMAN to MESSRS. MACMILLAN and Co. 

The Oratory, Dec. 30, 1863. 

GENTLEMEN, 

I do not write to you with any contro- 
versial purpose, which would be preposterous; but 
I address you simply because of your special inte- 
rest in a Magazine which bears your name. 

That highly respected name you have associated 
with a Magazine, of which the January number 
has been sent to me by this morning's post, with a 
pencil mark calling my attention to page 217. 

There, apropos of Queen Elizabeth, I read as 
follows : 

" Truth, for its own sake, had never been a 
virtue with the Roman clergy. Father Newman 
informs us that it need not, and on the whole 
ought not to be; that cunning is the weapon 
which Heaven has given to the saints wherewith 
tp withstand the brute male force of the wicked 
world which marries and is given in marriage. 
Whether his notion be doctrinally correct or not, 
it is at least historically so." 

There is no reference at the foot of the page to 
any words of mine, much less any quotation from 
my writings, in justification of this statement. 

I should not dream of expostulating with the 



10 

writer of such a passage, nor with the editor who 
could insert it without appending evidence in proof 
of its allegations. Nor do I want any reparation 
from either of them. I neither complain of them 
for their act, nor should I thank them if they re- 
versed it. Nor do I even write to you with any desire 
of troubling you to send ine an answer. I do but 
wish to draw the attention of yourselves, as gentle- 
men, to a grave and gratuitous slander, with which 
I feel confident you will be sorry to find associated 
a name so eminent as yours. 

I am, Gentlemen, 

Your obedient Servant, 
(Signed) JOHN H. NEWMAN. 



11 



III. 

The REV. CHARLES KINGSLEY to DR. NEWMAN. 

Eversley Kectory, January 6, 1864. 

REVEREND SIR, 

I have seen a letter of yours to Mr. 
Macmillan, in which you complain of some ex- 
pressions of mine in an article in the January 
number of Macmillan's Magazine. 

That my words were just, I believed from many 
passages of your writings; but the document to 
which I expressly referred was one of your Sermons 
on " Subjects of the Day," No. XX., in the volume 
published in 1844, and entitled " Wisdom and 
Innocence." 

It was in consequence of that sermon, that I 
finally shook off the strong influence which your 
writings exerted on me ; and for much of which I 
still owe you a deep debt of gratitude. 

I am most happy to hear from you that I mis- 
took (as I understand from your letter) your 
meaning; and I shall be most happy, on your 
showing me that I have wronged you, to retract 
my accusation as publicly as I have made it. ., 

I am, Reverend Sir, 

Your faithful Servant, 
(Signed) CHARLES KINGSLEY. 



12 



IV, 

NEWMA e REV. CHARLES KINGSLEY. 

The Oratory, Birmingham, 

January 7, 1864. 
vEREND SlR, 

I have to acknowledge your letter of 
the 6th, informing me that you are the writer of 
an article in Macmillan's Magazine, in which I am 
mentioned, and referring generally to a Protestant 
sermon of mine, of seventeen pages, published by 
me, as Vicar of St. Mary's, in 1844, and treating 
of the bearing of the Christian towards the world, 
and of the character of the reaction of that bearing 
upon him ; and also, referring to my works passim ; 
in justification of your statement, categorical and 
definite, that " Father Newman informs us that 
truth for its own sake need not, and on the whole 
ought not to be, a virtue with the Roman clergy." 

I have only to remark, in addition to what I 
have already said with great sincerity to Messrs. 
Macmillan and Co., in the letter of which you 
speak, and to which I refer you, that, when I wrote 
to them, no person whatever, whom I had ever 
seen or heard of, had occurred to me as the author 
of the statement in question. When I received 



13 

your letter, taking upon yourself the authorship, I 
was amazed. 

I am, Reverend Sir, 

Your obedient Servant, 
(Signed) JOHN H. NEWMAN. 



14 



V. 

DK. NEWMAN to X. Y., ESQ. K 

The Oratory, January 8, 1864. 
DEAR SIR, 

I thank you for the friendly tone of your 
letter of the 5th just received, and I wish to reply 
to it with the frankness which it invites. I have 
heard from Mr. Kingsley, avowing himself, to my 
extreme astonishment, the author of the passage 
about which I wrote to Messrs. Macmillan. No 
one, whose name I had ever heard, crossed my mind 
as the writer in their Magazine : and, had any one 
said that it was Mr. Kingsley, I should have laughed 
in his face. Certainly, I saw the initials at the 
end ; but, you must recollect, I live out of the 
world ; and I must own, if Messrs. Macmillan will 
not think the confession rude, that, as far as I 
remember, I never before saw even the outside of 
their Magazine. And so of the Editor : when I saw 
his name on the cover, it conveyed to me absolutely 
no idea whatever. I am not defending myself, but 
merely stating what was the. fact; and as to the 
article, I said to myself, " Here is a young scribe, 



1 A gentleman who interposed between Mr. Kingsley and 
Dr. Newman. 



15 

who is making himself a cheap reputation by smart 
hits at safe objects." 

All this will make you see, not only how I live 
out of the world, but also how wanton I feel it to 
have been in the parties concerned thus to let fly 
at me. Were I in active controversy with the 
Anglican body, or any portion of it, as I have been 
before now, I should consider untrue assertions 
about me to be in a certain sense a rule of the 
game, as times go, though God forbid that I should 
indulge in them myself in the case of another. 
I have never been very sensitive of such attacks; 
rarely taken notice of them. Now, when I have 
long ceased from controversy, they continue : they 
have lasted incessantly from the year 1833 to this 
day. They do not ordinarily come in my way: 
when they do, I let them pass through indolence. 
Sometimes friends send me specimens of them ; and 
sometimes they are such as I am bound to answer, 
if I would not compromise interests which are 
dearer to me than life. The January number of 
the Magazine was sent to me, I know not by whom, 
friend or foe, with the passage on which I have 
animadverted, emphatically, not to say indignantly, 
scored against. Nor can there be a better proof 
that there was a call upon me to notice it, than the 
astounding fact that you can so calmly (excuse me) 
" confess plainly" of yourself, as you do, " that you 
had read the passage, and 'did not even think 



16 

that I or any of my communion would think it 
unjust." 

Most wonderful phenomenon ! An educated man, 
breathing English air. and walking in the light 
of the nineteenth century, thinks that neither I nor 
any members of my communion feel any difficulty 
in allowing that " Truth for its own sake need not, 
and on the whole ought not to be, a virtue with the 
Eoman Clergy:" nay. that they are not at all sur- 
prised to be told that k; Father Newman had in- 
formed " the world, that such is the standard of 
morality acknowledged, acquiesced in, by his co- 
religionists ! But. I suppose, in truth, there is 
nothing at all, however base, up to the high mark 
of Titus Gates, which a Catholic may not expect 
to be believed of him by Protestants, however 
honourable and hard-headed. However, dismissing 
this natural train of thought, I observe on your 
avowal as follows; and I think what I shall say 
will commend itself to your judgment as soon as 
I say it. 

1 think you will allow then, that there is a broad 
difference between a virtue, considered in itself as 
a principle or rule, and the application or limits 
of it in human conduct. Catholics and Protestants, 
in their view of the substance of the moral virtues. 
agree, but they carry them out variously in detail; 
and in particular instances, and in the case of par- 
ticular actors or writers, with but indifferent sue- 



17 

cess. Truth is the same in itself and in substance 
to Catholic and Protestant; so is purity: both 
virtues are to be referred to that moral sense which 
is the natural possession of us all. But when we 
come to the question in detail, whether this or that 
act in particular is conformable to the rule of truth, 
or again to the rule of purity; then sometimes 
there is a difference of opinion between individuals, 
sometimes between schools, and sometimes between 
religious communions. I, on my side, have long 
thought, even before I was a Catholic, that the 
Protestant system, as such, leads to a lax ob- 
servance of the rule of purity; Protestants think 
that the Catholic system, as such, leads to a lax 
observance of the rule of truth. I am very sorry 
that they should think so, but I cannot help it; 
I lament their mistake, but I bear it as I may. If 
Mr. Kingsley had said no more than this, I should 
not have felt it necessary to criticize such an ordi- 
nary remark. But, as I should be committing a 
crime, heaping dirt upon my soul, and storing up 
for myself remorse and confusion of face at a future 
day, if I applied my abstract belief of the latent 
sensuality of Protestantism, on a priori reasoning, 
to individuals, to living persons, to authors and 
men of name, and said (not to make disrespectful 
allusion to the living) that Bishop Van Mildert, 
or the Rev. Dr. Spry, or Dean Milner, or the Rev. 
Charles Simeon "informs us that chastity for its 
own sake need not be, and on the whole ought not 

B 



18 

to be, a virtue with the Anglican clergy," and 
then, when challenged for the proof, said, " Vide 
Van Mildert's Bampton Lectures and Simeon's 
Skeleton Sermons passim;" and, as I should only 
make the matter still worse, if I pointed to fla- 
grant instances of paradoxical divines or of bad 
clergymen among Protestants, as, for instance, to 
that popular London preacher at the end of last 
century who advocated polygamy in print; so, in 
like manner, for a writer, when he is criticizing 
definite historical facts of the sixteenth century, 
which stand or fall on their own merits, to go out 
of his way to have a fling at an unpopular name, 
living but " clown," and boldly to say to those who 
know no better, who know nothing but what he 
tells them, who take their tradition of historical 
facts from him, who do not know me, to say of me, 
u Father Newman informs us that Truth for its 
own sake need not be, and on the whole ought not 
to be, a virtue with the Roman clergy," and to be 
thus brilliant and antithetical (save the mark!) in 
the very cause of Truth, is a proceeding of so special 
a character as to lead me to exclaim, after the pat- 
tern of the celebrated saying, u Truth, how many 
lies are told in thy name ! " 

Such being the state of the case, I think I shall 
carry you along with me when I say, that, if there 
is to be any explanation in the Magazine of so 
grave an inadvertence, it concerns the two gentle- 
men who are responsible for it, of what complexion 



19 

that explanation shall be. For me, it is not I who 
ask for it; I look on mainly as a spectator, and 
shall praise or blame, according to my best judg- 
ment, as I see what they do. Not that, in so 
acting, I am implying a doubt of all that you tell 
me of them; but "handsome is, that handsome 
does." If they set about proving their point, or, 
should they find that impossible, if they say so, in 
either case I shall call them men. But, bear 
with me for harbouring a suspicion which Mr. 
Kingsley's letter to me has inspired, if they pro- 
pose merely to smooth the matter over by publish- 
ing to the world that I have a complained," or that 
" they yield to my letters, expostulations, represen- 
tations, explanations," or that "they are quite 
ready to be convinced of their mistake, if 1 will 
convince them," or that " they have profound re- 
spect for me, but really they are not the only 
persons who have gathered from my writings what 
they have said of me," or that " they are unfeignedly 
surprised that I should visit in their case what 
I have passed over in the case of others," or that 
" they have ever had a true sense of my good 
points, but cannot be expected to be blind to my 
faults," if this be the sum total of what they are to 
say, and they ignore the fact that the onus pro- 
bandi of a very definite accusation lies upon them, 
and that they have no right to throw the burden 
upon others, then, I say with submission, they had 

"B 2 



20 

better let it all alone, as far as I am concerned, for 
a half-measure settles nothing. 

January 10. I will add, that any letter ad- 
dressed to me by Mr. Kingsley, I account public 
property; not so, should you favour me with any 
fresh communication yourself. 

I am, Dear Sir, 

Yours faithfully, 
(Signed) JOHN H. NEWMAN. 



VI. 

The KEV. CHARLES KINGSLEY to DR. NEWMAN. 

Eversley Rectory, January 14, 18(54. 

KEVEREND SIR, 

I have the honour to acknowledge your 
answer to my letter. 

I have also seen your letter to Mr. X. Y. On 
neither of them shall I make any comment, save to 
say, that, if you fancy that I have attacked you 
because you were, as you please to term it, " down," 
you do me a great injustice; and also, that the 
suspicion expressed in the latter part of your letter 
to Mr. X. Y., is needless. 

The course, which you demand of me, is the 
only course fit for a gentleman ; and, as the tone of 
your letters (even more than their language) make 
me feel, to my very deep pleasure, that my opinion 
of the meaning of your words was a mistaken one, 
I shall send at once to Macmillan's Magazine the 
few lines which I inclose. 

You say, that you will consider my letters as 
public. You have every right to do so. 

I remain, Eeverend Sir, 
Yours faithfully, 
(Signed) C. KINGSLEY. 



22 



VII. 

[This will appear in the next number.'] 
" To THE EDITOR OF MACMILLAN'S MAGAZINE. 

" SIR, 

"In your last number I made certain 
allegations against the teaching of the Rev. Dr. 
Newman, which were founded on a sermon of his, 
entitled ' Wisdom and Innocence," (the sermon will 
be fully described, as to ' . . .) 

"Dr. Newman has, by letter, expressed in the 
strongest terms, his denial of the meaning which I 
have put upon his words. 

"No man knows the use of words better than 
Dr. Newman ; no man, therefore, has a better right 
to define what he does, or does not, mean by them. 

"It only remains, therefore, for me to express 
my hearty regret at having so seriously mistaken 
him; and my hearty pleasure at finding him on 
the side of Truth, in this, or any other, matter. 

(Signed) CHARLES KINGSLEY." 

1 Here follows a word or half-word, whiclT neither I nor any 
one else to whom I have shown the MS. can decypher. I have 
at p. 25 filled in for Mr. Kingsley what I understood him to 
mean by "fully." J. H. K 



VIII. 

DR. NEWMAN to the REV. CHARLES KINGSLEY. 

The Oratory, January 17, 1864. 

REVEREND SIR, 

Since you do no more than announce 
to me your intention of inserting in Macmillan's 
Magazine the letter, a copy of which you are so 
good as to transcribe for me, perhaps I am taking 
a liberty in making any remarks to you upon it. 
But then, the very fact of your showing it to me 
seems to invite criticism; and so sincerely do I 
wish to bring this painful matter to an immediate 
settlement, that, at the risk of being officious, I 
avail myself of your courtesy fo express the judg- 
ment which I have carefully formed upon it. 

I believe it to be your wish to do me such justice 
as is compatible with your duty of upholding the 
consistency and quasi-infallibility which is neces- 
sary for a periodical publication; and I am far 
from expecting any thing from you which would be 
unfair to Messrs. Macmillan and Co. Moreover, 
I am quite aware, that the reading public, to whom 
your letter is virtually addressed, cares little for 
the wording of an explanation, provided it be made 
aware of the fact that an explanation has been 
given. 



24 

Nevertheless, after giving your letter the benefit 
of both these considerations, I am sorry to say I 
feel it my duty to withhold from it the approbation 
which I fain would bestow. 

Its main fault is, that, quite contrary to your 
intention, it will be understood by the general 
reader to intimate, that I have been confronted 
with definite extracts from my works, and have 
laid before you my own interpretations of them. 
Such a proceeding I have indeed challenged, but 
have not been so fortunate as to bring about. 

But besides, I gravely disapprove of the letter as 
a whole. The grounds of this dissatisfaction will 
be best understood by you, if I place in parallel 
columns its paragraphs, one by one, and what I 
conceive will be the popular reading of them. 

This I proceed to do. 

I have the honour to be, 
Reverend Sir, 

Your obedient Servant, 
(Signed) JOHN H. NEWMAN. 

Mr. Kingsley^s Letter. Unjust, but too probable, po- 

pular rendering of it. 
1. Sir, In your last num- 
ber I made certain allegations 
against the teaching of the 
Eev. Dr. Newman, which 
were founded on a Sermon of 
his, entitled "Wisdom and 



25 



Innocence," preached by him 
as Yicar of St. Mary's, and 
published in 1844. 

2. Dr. Newman has, by 
letter, expressed in the strong- 
est terms his denial of the 
meaning which I have put 
upon his words. 



2. I have set before Dr. 
Newman, as he challenged 
me to do, extracts from his 
writings, and he has affixed 
to them what he conceives to 
be their legitimate sense, to 
the denial of that in which 
I understood them. 



3. No man knows the use 
of words better than Dr. 
Newman ; no man, therefore, 
has a better right to define 
what he does, or does not, 
mean by them. 

4. It only remains, there- 
fore, for me to express my 
hearty regret at having so 
seriously mistaken him, and 
my hearty pleasure at finding 
him on the side of truth, in 
this or any other matter. 



3. lie has done this with the 
skill of a great master of 
verbal fence, who knows, as 
well as any man living, how 
to insinuate a doctrine with- 
out committing himself to it. 

4. However, while I heartily 
regret that I have so seriously 
mistaken the sense which he 
assures me his words were 
meant to bear, I cannot but 
feel a hearty pleasure also, at 
having brought him, for once 
in a way, to confess that after 
all truth is a Christian virtue. 



26 



IX. 
REV. CHARLES KINGSLEY to DR. NEWMAN. 

Eversley Kectory, January 18, 1864. 

REVEREND SIR, 

I do not think it probable that the 
good sense and honesty of the British Public will 
misinterpret my apology, in the way in which you 
expect. 

Two passages in it, which I put in in good faith 
and good feeling, may, however, be open to such a 
bad use, and I have written to Messrs. Macmillan 
to omit them ; viz. the words, " No man knows the 
use of words better than Dr. Newman;" and those, 
" My hearty pleasure at finding him in the truth 
(sic) on this or any other matter." 

As to your Art. 2, it seems to me, that, by 
referring publicly to the Sermon on which my 
allegations are founded, I have given, not only you, 
but every one an opportunity of judging of their 
injustice. Having done this, and having frankly 
accepted your assertion that I was mistaken, I have 
done as much as one English gentleman can expect 
from another. 

I have the honour to be, 

Reverend Sir, 

Your obedient Servant, 
(Signed) CHARLES KINGSLEY. 



27 



X. 

DK. NEWMAN to MESSRS. MACMILLAN & Co. 

The Oratory, January 22, 1864. 

GENTLEMEN, 

Mr. Kingsley, the writer of the para- 
graph to which I called your attention on the 30th 
of last month, has shown his wish to recall words, 
which I considered a great affront to myself, and a 
worse insult to the Catholic priesthood. He has 
sent me the draft of a Letter which he proposes to 
insert in the February number of your Magazine; 
and, when I gave him my criticisms upon it, he 
had the good feeling to withdraw two of its para- 
graphs. 

However, he did not remove that portion of it, 
to which, as I told him, lay my main objection. 

That portion ran as follows : 

u Dr. Newman has by letter expressed in the 
strongest terms his denial of the meaning which I 
have put upon his words." 

My objection to this sentence, which (with the 
addition of a reference to a Protestant sermon of 
mine, which he says formed the ground of his 
assertion, and of an expression of regret at having 
mistaken me) constitutes, after the withdrawal of 



28 

the two paragraphs, the whole of his proposed 
letter, I thus explained to him : 

" Its [the proposed letter's] main fault is, that, 
quite contrary to your intention, it will be under- 
stood by the general reader to intimate, that I 
have been confronted with definite extracts from my 
works, and have laid before you my own interpre- 
tation of them. Such a proceeding I have indeed 
challenged, but have not been so fortunate as to 
bring about." 

In answer to this representation, Mr. Kingsley 
wrote to me as follows : 

" It seems to me, that, by referring publicly to 
the sermon, on which my allegations are founded, 
I have given, not only you, but every one, an oppor- 
tunity of judging of their injustice. Having done 
this, and having frankly accepted your assertion 
that I was mistaken, I have done as much as one 
English gentleman can expect from another." 

I received this reply the day before yesterday. 
It disappointed me, for I had hoped that, with the 
insertion of a letter from him in your Magazine for 
February, there would have been an end of the 
whole matter. However, I have waited forty-eight 
hours, to give time for his explanation to make its 
full, and therefore its legitimate impression on my 
mind. After this interval, I find my judgment of 
the passage just what it was. 

Moreover, since sending to Mr. Kingsley that 
judgment, I have received a letter from a friend at 



29 

a distance, whom I had consulted, a man about my 
own age, who lives out of the world of theological 
controversy and contemporary literature, and whose 
intellectual habits especially qualify him for taking 
a clear and impartial view of the force of words. 
I put before him the passage in your January 
number, and the writer's proposed letter in Feb- 
ruary ] ; and I asked him whether I might consider 
the letter sufficient for its purpose, without saying 
a word to show him the leaning of my own mind. 
He answers : 

" In answer to your question, whether Mr. 
Kingsley's proposed reparation is sufficient, I have 
no hesitation in saying, Most decidedly not. With- 
out attempting to quote any passage from your 
writings which j ustifies in any manner the language 
which he has used in his review, he leaves it to be 
inferred that the representation, which he has 
given of your statements and teaching in the 
sermon to which he refers, is the fair and natural 
and primary sense of them, and that it is only by 
your declaring that you did not mean what you 
really and in effect said, that he finds that he had 
made a false charge.' 7 

This opinion thus given came to me, I repeat, 
after I had sent to Mr. Kingsley the letter of 
objection, of which I have quoted a portion above. 
You will see that, though the two judgments are 

1 Viz. as it is given above, p. 22. J. H. N. 



30 

independent of each other, they in substance coin- 
cide. 

It only remains for me then to write to you 
again; and, in writing to you now, I do no more 
than I did on the 30th of December. I bring the 
matter before you, without requiring from you any 
reply. 

I am, Gentlemen, 

Your obedient Servant, 
(Signed) JOHN H. NEWMAN. 



XI. 



Letter of Explanation from Mr. KINGSLEY, as it 
stands in Macmillaris Magazine for February, 
1864, p. 368. 
TO THE EDITOR OF MACMILLAN'S MAGAZINE. 

SIR, 

In your last number I made certain alle- 
gations against the teaching of Dr. John Henry 
Newman, which I thought were justified hy a Sermon 
of his, entitled "Wisdom and Innocence" (Ser- 
mon 20 of " Sermons bearing on Subjects of the 
Day"). Dr. Newman has by letter expressed, in 
the strongest terms, his denial of the meaning which 
I have put upon his words. It only remains, there- 
fore, for me to express my hearty regret at having 
so seriously mistaken him. 

Yours faithfully, 
(Signed) CHARLES KINGSLEY. 

Eversley, January 14, 1864. 



XII. 

Reflections on the above. 

I shall attempt a brief analysis of the foregoing 
correspondence ; and I trust that the wording which 
I shall adopt will not offend against the gravity due 
both to myself and to the occasion. It is impos- 
sible to do justice to the course of thought evolved 
in it without some familiarity of expression. 

Mr. Kingsley begins then by exclaiming, " O the 
chicanery, the wholesale fraud, the vile hypocrisy, 
the conscience-killing tyranny of Rome ! We have 
not far to seek for an evidence of it. There's 
Father Newman to wit: one living specimen is 
worth a hundred dead ones. He, a Priest writing 
of Priests, tells us that lying is never any harm." 

I interpose : " You are taking a most extraor- 
dinary liberty with my name. If I have said this, 
tell me when and where." 

Mr. Kingsley replies : " You said it, Reverend 
Sir, in a Sermon which you preached, when a Pro- 
testant, as Yicar of St. Mary's, and published in 
1844; and I could read you a very salutary lecture 
on the effects which that Sermon had at the time 
on my own opinion of you." 

I make answer : "Oh ... Not, it seems, as a 



33 

Priest speaking of Priests; but let us have the 
passage." 

Mr. Kingsley relaxes: "Do you know, I like 
your tone. From your tone I rejoice, greatly re- 
joice, to be able to believe that you did not mean 
what you said." 

I rejoin : " Mean it ! I maintain I never said it, 
whether as a Protestant or as a Catholic." 

Mr. Kingsley replies : " I waive that point." 

I object : " Is it possible ! What ? waive the 
main question ! I either said it or I didn't. You 
have made a monstrous charge against me ; direct, 
distinct, public. You are bound to prove it as 
directly, as distinctly, as publicly; or to own you 
can't." 

" Well," says Mr. Kingsley, " if you are quite 
sure you did not say it, I'll^ take your word for it ; 
I really will." 

My word! I am dumb. Somehow I thought 
that it was my word that happened to be on trial. 
The word of a, Professor of lying, that he does not 
lie! 

But Mr. Kingsley re-assures me : " We are both 
gentlemen," he says : " I have done as much as one 
English gentleman can expect from another." 

I begin to see : he thought me a gentleman at 
the very time that he said I taught lying on system. 
After all, it is not I, but it is Mr. Kingsley who 
did not mean what he said. " Habemus confitentem 



34 

So we have confessedly come round to this, 
preaching without practising; the common theme 
of satirists from Juvenal to Walter Scott ! " I left 
Baby. Charles and Steenie laying his duty before 
him," says King James of the reprobate Dalgarno : 
" O Geordie, jingling Geordie, it was grand to hear 
Baby Charles laying down the guilt of dissimulation, 
and Steenie lecturing un the turpitude of inconti- 



nence." 



While I feel then that Mr. Kingsley's February 
explanation is miserably insufficient in itself for his 
January enormity, still^ I feel also that the Corre- 
spondence, which lierf between these two acts of his, 
constitutes a real satisfaction to those principles of 
historical and literary j ustice to which he has given 
so rude a shock. 

Accordingly, I have t put it into print, and make 
no further criticism on ^h. Kingsley. 

J. H. N. 



END. 



GILBERT AND RIVINGTON, PE1STEBS, ST. JOHN'S SQUAKE, LONDON.